By Qamar Bashir
It is an exhilarating experience to be in one of the most pivotal states in the U.S.—Michigan, one of the seven key swing states that, alongside Arizona, Nevada, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Georgia, and North Carolina, will shape the outcome of the presidential election, the future of America, and, by extension, the world. Swing states are crucial because Democratic (blue) states control 180 electoral votes, while Republican (red) states outside the swing states hold 186. Both parties are likely to retain their blue and red strongholds in the upcoming election, which is just two days away (November 5, 2024). As a result, the fate of both Democrats and Republicans hinges on
these swing states, which hold the key to their success or failure.
The most impactful part of this experience has been the healthy and objective discussions
among canvassers and with voters at their doorsteps. Canvassing door-to-door,
particularly for me, was a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to truly understand the
sentiments of everyday people, not the elites in their luxurious homes. These doorstep
interactions with various segments and races revealed distinct preferences.
Among Michigan’s population of 10,077,331, which is 73.9% white, I observed two
notable trends. White men overwhelmingly support Mr. Trump, with only a few
exceptions. On the other hand, white women are more divided, with many supporting
Kamala Harris due to her stance on women's reproductive rights, particularly the right to
choose regarding abortion. Meanwhile, the Black population, making up 13.7% of the
state’s population, is almost entirely in favor of Harris.
White Trump supporters, at their core, are driven by racial concerns, opposing
immigration and harboring a deep desire to rid the country of what they see as the
scourge of immigration.
Asian communities, particularly those from South Asia, are also split. Many are hesitant
to openly express their political preferences, but when they do, they tend to favor Harris.
However, younger South Asians, especially second-generation immigrants, show some
support for Trump, citing concerns about the economy and job layoffs. One young
Bangladeshi-American I spoke to mentioned he supports Trump because, during the
previous Democratic administration, most of the men in his family were unemployed.
Interestingly, when asked about the main issue or problem in the upcoming elections,
many respondents replied that "everything is a problem." They expressed a general
dissatisfaction, feeling that nothing is right and that everything needs to be realigned with
democratic values, emphasizing civility, forgiveness, and compassion for each other
irrespective of creed, color or race.
A significant number of respondents voiced their dislike for both Trump and Harris,
noting that candidates often promise paradise before the election, but once in power, they
forget those promises and focus on enjoying the perks of power and wealth, which they
believe was the primary motivation behind running for office.
These conversations reminded me of similar sentiments often expressed by people in my
own country, where there's a shared frustration with political leaders who fail to deliver
on their promises once they assume power.
During the group discussion, another hotly debated point was the use of divisive election
rhetoric. Many noted that, despite knowing their slogans and rhetoric against races,
immigrants, and opponents are irrational, illogical, and contrary to the norms of decency,
political leaders continue to use them. They are aware that such rhetoric creates deep
divisions and hatred among different racial groups, yet they inject this hateful "virus"
purposefully to stir emotions, create frenzy, and push people toward extremist attitudes.
The belief is that this tactic will solidify support among less-educated and racially biased
voters, whose strong sentiments against their opponents will translate into votes.
According to most individuals in the discussion, this is a narrow and parochial approach,
which they view as highly detrimental to the security, safety, and well-being of the
American people. Interestingly, this growing sense of insecurity has even permeated
Working America, the agency conducting door-to-door surveys on behalf of the
Democrats. The agency has had to hire private security to protect its operations and
personnel, highlighting the increased risks in the current political climate.
When it comes to election predictions, numerous surveys and polls have been conducted
by various agencies and institutions, resulting in different and sometimes conflicting
outcomes, making the prediction process even more complex. Having served in
government roles in Pakistan, assisting ministers and even the President, I have insight
into the mechanisms behind such surveys.
I quickly realized that during elections, poll-conducting agencies are often driven by
profit. Political parties hire these agencies, either directly or through third parties, and, in
exchange for payment, results that favor the hiring party are often injected into the media
to create the perception of their widespread popularity.
For instance, according to “FiveThirtyEight”, Harris leads with 48.0% compared to
Trump’s 46.8%, a margin of 1.2 percentage points. Similarly, “RealClearPolitics” shows
Harris ahead by 4 points in a CBS News poll and by 5 points in an NBC News poll.
According to the New York Post analysis, recent polls show Trump leading Harris. In
Pennsylvania, Trump is predicted to be ahead by 48% to 47%; in Michigan, he leads 48%
to 47%. In Arizona, Trump holds a 48% to 46% lead, and in Georgia, he leads 48% to
46%. However, Marist College finds Harris ahead by 3 points in Michigan, 2 points in
Pennsylvania, and 2 points in Wisconsin. Additionally, the Australian Report states that
national polls show Trump slightly ahead of Harris, with a poll average of 48.4% to
48.3%.
These diverse polling results reflect how polls can vary, possibly influenced by the
interests of those funding the surveys, raising concerns about their objectivity and
accuracy.
In Pakistan, we are familiar with how, seemingly overnight, the tide begins to turn in
favor of a particular political party once the establishment has decided to install it in
power as their preferred choice. Similarly, in the U.S., it appears that the election winds
are now blowing in favor of Kamala Harris—not necessarily because people have deep
faith in her or feel particularly passionate about her candidacy, but rather to prevent
Donald Trump from returning to power. Trump, who former Democratic President Bill
Clinton aptly described as "more unhinged" than he was during the 2016 elections, is
seen by many as a greater risk, and this sentiment seems to be driving support for Harris.
